The media is flooding us with misinformation. How do we manage it?
It is helpful to understand what rational argumentation looks like. Here is the Toulmin model (Toulmin, Rieke & Jani, 1984):
Claim is made > Supportive facts are given > Reason for connecting claim and facts > Theory or empirical evidence backing the claim is presented > Qualifications of the claim are made > Consideration of alternative explanations.
Science offers a method for testing claims (hypotheses). It is helpful to remember the principles of experimental science (e.g., behavioral science):
- Hypotheses or claims are subject to falsifiability.
- Claims must be empirically verifiable.
- Simpler theories follow the desire for parsimony.
- Scientists use probabilistic reasoning (chances of it are xx%).
- Scientists look for generalizability (depends on method and sample).
- Scientists look for converging evidence (a single study is not enough).
In his book, The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark (1996), public scientist Carl Sagan provided some tools. First, he described the uniqueness of science in helping us discern truth:
"Science is different from many another human enterprise—not, of course, in its practitioners being influenced by the culture they grew up in, nor in sometimes being right and sometimes wrong (which are common to every human activity), but in its passion for framing testable hypotheses, in its search for definitive experiments that confirm or deny ideas, in the vigor of its substantive debate, and in its willingness to abandon ideas that have been found wanting.
See Also55+ Best Open Source PC Software for almost EverythingGestão de banca nas apostas esportivas - Dicas BetVladimir Putin garante que a situação nos territórios anexados vai "estabilizar" - como aconteceu25 Best Software Development Tools for Startups in 2022 - nTaskIf we were not aware of our own limitations, though, if we were not seeking further data, if we were unwilling to perform controlled experiments, if we did not respect the evidence, we would have very little leverage in our quest for the truth. Through opportunism and timidity we might they be buffeted by every ideological breeze, with nothing of lasting value to hang on to." (p. 263)
Sagan distinguished science from pseudoscience:
"Perhaps the sharpest distinction between science and pseudoscience is that science has a far keener appreciation of human imperfections and fallibility than does pseudoscience (or "inerrant" revelation). If we resolutely refuse to acknowledge where we are liable to fall into error, then we can confidently expect that error—even serious error, profound mistakes—will be our companion forever. But if we are capable of a little courageous self-assessment, whatever rueful reflections they may engender, our chances improve enormously." (p. 21)
Sagan acknowledged the difficulty of finding truths:
“Finding the occasional straw of truth awash in a great ocean of confusion and bamboozle requires vigilance, dedication, and courage. But if we don't practice these tough habits of thought, we cannot hope to solve the truly serious problems that face us—and we risk becoming a nation of suckers, a world of suckers, up for grabs by the next charlatan who saunters along." (p. 39)
Sagan was very concerned about how easily people are fooled if they don’t have a toolkit for detecting “baloney.” And so he provided several lists of advice and cautions are particularly relevant in this era of false information being spread far and wide as money-making clickbait.
Evaluating the Validity of a Truth Claim
- Wherever possible there must be independent confirmation of the "facts."
- Encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents of all points of view.
- In science, there are no authorities, just experts.
- Try not to get overly attached to one hypothesis just because it's yours. Think of reasons to reject it. If you don't, others will.
- Instead, set up more than one hypothesis and think how it could be proved. Always consider, ‘what if the opposite of my position were true?’
- Quantify. If you can measure something, you are better able to discriminate among competing hypotheses. What is vague and qualitative is open to many explanations and truth is harder to find.
- If there's a chain of argument, every link in the chain must work (including the premise), not just most of them.
- When you have a choice, choose the simplest hypothesis (“Occam's razor”).
- Always ask whether the hypothesis can be, at least in principle, falsified.
- Propositions that are untestable, unfalsifiable are not worth much.
Sagan also offered lessons in how to avoid falling for baloney, calling it “the fine art of baloney detection.” I've had students assess their favorite news outlets or feeds using the following list.
What to Watch For: Fallacies of Logic and Rhetoric That Do Not Address the Argument:
- Attacking the arguer and not the argument (called ad hominem; Latin for "towards the man"). Just because an argument is made by someone you may not like does not mean the argument itself is flawed.
- Appeal to authority. Just because a famous person said so does not make it so.
- Argument from adverse consequences that might result. This is an appeal to emotions, not a legitimate rejection of a reasoned argument.
- Appeal to ignorance—the claim that whatever has not been proved false must be true, and vice versa. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
- Special pleading, often to rescue a proposition in deep rhetorical trouble (e.g., "God moves in mysterious ways").
- Begging the question (assuming your conclusion is true).
- Observational selection (confirmation bias)—counting the hits and ignoring the misses; looking and finding what you are looking for, disregarding contrary evidence).
- Hasty generalization (generalizing from a few cases).
- Inconsistency (e.g., to say that the decline of life expectancy in the former Soviet Union is due to failure of communism without a comparable statement that the high infant mortality rate in the U.S. is due to the failure of capitalism).
- Non sequitur: a statement irrelevant to the argument (e.g., "Our nation will prevail because God is great").
- Post hoc, ergo propter hoc (Latin) because it happened after X, it was caused by X.
- Meaningless question.
- False dilemma (excluded middle or false dichotomy): it's either one extreme position or the other.
- Slippery slope, related to excluded middle.
- Confusion of correlation and causation. Correlations are not causations for various reasons: (1) Third variable problem (two things that occur together may be caused by another variable); (2) Directionality problem (unclear which variable may cause the other).
- Straw man, caricaturing a position to make it easier to attack.
- Suppressed evidence/half-truths.
- Weasel words: “Some people say…”; being non-specific so that later you can deny anything implied.
We can add:
- What-about-ism: accusing the arguer of hypocrisy, distracting attention from the issue at hand (used in the Soviet Union and Russia routinely).
Watch out for your own human reasoning fallacies
Human reasoning gets off track by several weaknesses that are used by those who want to manipulate decision-making.
- Susceptibility to vividness (e.g., testimonials by people who have supposedly used the product; shocking pictures you remember)
- Susceptibility to availability (availability heuristic): What’s pops into your mind (based on repeated exposure). For example, when Americans think of a criminal they often think of someone with dark skin because even though the most significant criminal damage (e.g., financial fraud) is done by white-collar criminals who are by-and-large privileged white people. Americans have been primed by media exposure to imagine a dark-skinned person, due to the fact that most local news focuses on physical crimes done usually by disadvantaged people.
- Illusory correlation (things that occur together must be causally related)
- Gambler's fallacy (a streak of bad luck must be balanced by a streak of good luck)
- Conjunction fallacy (stereotyping ignoring probabilities)
- Attribution error (assuming your behavior is affected by circumstance but the behavior of others is chosen based on personality)
In conducting research, there are a number of cautions researchers watch out for.
- Selection bias (favoring the familiar, what you are looking for is salient)
Here is a list of other biases.
Researchers also have to be careful in drawing conclusions because of the following:
- Multiple causation (most things have multiple causes—hard for humans to conceive)
- Sample size (too small a sample is not a reliable source for drawing conclusions)
- Illusory correlation (assuming variables that are found together are related)
References
Sagan, C. (1996). The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark. New York: Penguin.
Toulmin, S., & Rieke, R., & Janik, A. (1984). An Introduction to Reasoning, 2nd ed.. New York: Macmillan.
FAQs
How do you evaluate truth claims? ›
Evaluating the Validity of a Truth Claim
Encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents of all points of view. In science, there are no authorities, just experts. Try not to get overly attached to one hypothesis just because it's yours. Think of reasons to reject it.
In religion, a truth claim is an assertion that the belief system holds to be true; however, from the existence of an assertion that the belief system holds to be true, it does not follow that the assertion is true. For example, a truth claim in Judaism is that only one God exists.
What are the criteria you can use to evaluate different types of evidence? ›Common evaluation criteria include: purpose and intended audience, authority and credibility, accuracy and reliability, currency and timeliness, and objectivity or bias.
What four criteria should be used to evaluate scientific claims? ›Evaluating Evidence
While there are many ways to evaluate evidence, four useful criteria are that the evidence should be sufficient, relevant, comprehensive, and reliable.
Truth is important. Believing what is not true is apt to spoil people's plans and may even cost them their lives. Telling what is not true may result in legal and social penalties. Conversely, a dedicated pursuit of truth characterizes the good scientist, the good historian, and the good detective.
Why is it important to evaluate evidence for a claim? ›The ability to evaluate evidence is essential both to assessing the merits of others' arguments and to developing a convincing argument of one's own.
What is a claim of evaluation? ›An evaluative claim makes a statement about what is good or bad, right or wrong. For example: People should read books instead of watching so much TV. To test an evaluative claim, we appeal to standards of value. In this case, the standard might be the value of literacy.
What is truth and why is it important in philosophy? ›Some philosophers view the concept of truth as basic, and unable to be explained in any terms that are more easily understood than the concept of truth itself. Most commonly, truth is viewed as the correspondence of language or thought to a mind-independent world. This is called the correspondence theory of truth.
How do we determine truth? ›Four factors determine the truthfulness of a theory or explanation: congruence, consistency, coherence, and usefulness.
How do you evaluate your evidence? ›- Who/what is the source of the evidence? ...
- Is the evidence found in a primary or secondary source? ...
- How does the evidence from one source compare and contrast with the evidence from another source? ...
- How current is the evidence?
What is the most important consideration when evaluating evidence? ›
Evidence strength and consistency, data quality, bias and publication date were all cited as key factors affecting the influence of a study on policy (O'Donoughue Jenkins et al., 2016) . ... ... There are many reasons why evidence is not taken up.
How do you evaluate evidence examples? ›- Is the evidence up-to-date?
- Is the evidence relevant? ...
- Is the evidence sufficient? ...
- Is your example similar to other examples you could have chosen, or does it present an extreme or atypical situation? ...
- Does your example illustrate your point?
- Is the source of the data trustworthy?
- Where does the information come from?
- Are there other sources that verify the information? Is it supported by evidence?
- Has the information been reviewed or refereed?
- Does the language or tone seem unbiased and free of emotion?
- Currency. The timeliness of the information. When was the information published? ...
- Relevancy. The importance of the information to your context. ...
- Authority. The source of the information. ...
- Accuracy. The reliability, truthfulness, and correctness of the content. ...
- Purpose. The reason the information exists.
- When was the information published or posted?
- Has the information been revised or updated?
- Does your topic require current information, or will older sources work as well?
- Are the links functional?
...
Here is another example:
- P → Q.
- ¬ Q.
- ¬ P.
Evaluation of Evidence questions ask you to determine whether evidence strengthens, weakens, or is relevant to the arguments in a reading passage.
How do you evaluate evidence in a research paper? ›- Is the evidence up-to-date?
- Is the evidence relevant? ...
- Is the evidence sufficient? ...
- Is your example similar to other examples you could have chosen, or does it present an extreme or atypical situation? ...
- Does your example illustrate your point?
- Is the source of the data trustworthy?
To build comprehension skills, students need to know how to evaluate important information that they read. Students can make judgments about information based off of prior knowledge and experience, their cultural values, and their purpose for reading.
What is the purpose of a evaluation? ›Evaluation provides a systematic method to study a program, practice, intervention, or initiative to understand how well it achieves its goals. Evaluations help determine what works well and what could be improved in a program or initiative.
What does it mean to evaluate your decisions? ›
After a decision has been made and implemented it is important to assess both the outcome of the decision and the process by which the decision was reached. Doing so confirms whether the decision actually led to the desired outcomes and also provides important information that can benefit future decision making.
What is truth and why is it important essay? ›Truth matters, and it is important both to an individual and society as a whole as an individual being truthful means that one can grow and mature by learning from their mistakes. For society, truthfulness helps in building social bonds. At the same time, lying and hypocrisy has an adverse effect and break those bonds.
What makes truth true? ›The correspondence theory of truth is at its core an ontological thesis: a belief is true if there exists an appropriate entity – a fact – to which it corresponds. If there is no such entity, the belief is false. Facts, for the neo-classical correspondence theory, are entities in their own right.
How do you evaluate an argument from evidence? ›- Who is making the argument?
- What gives them authority to make the argument?
- What evidence is given in support of the argument? ...
- Does the evidence upon which the argument is based come from a reliable and independent source?
Visual analysis is an important step in evaluating an image and understanding its meaning. It is also important to consider textual information provided with the image, the image source and original context of the image, and the technical quality of the image.
What are the important points to consider in evaluating the reliability of sources? ›Currency: Timeliness of the information. Relevance: Importance of the information for your needs. Authority: Source of the information. Accuracy: Truthfulness and correctness of the information.
How do you evaluate in a sentence? ›- He was only truly happy when he worked alone; then the planning and the risks were solely his to evaluate. Forbes, Bryan. ...
- He was still too surprised to be able to evaluate the situation logically. ...
- I do not know either man, and cannot evaluate the reliability of their claims.
to judge or calculate the quality, importance, amount, or value of something: It's impossible to evaluate these results without knowing more about the research methods employed. [ + question word ] We shall need to evaluate how the new material stands up to wear and tear.
How important is it to evaluate information from different kinds of sources? ›Evaluating information sources is a important part of the research process. Not all information is reliable or true, nor will all information be suitable for your paper or project. Print and Internet sources vary widely in their authority, accuracy, objectivity, currency, and coverage.
What does it mean to evaluate a source of information? ›Evaluating sources means recognizing whether the information you read and include in your research is credible. Despite the large amount of information available, both in print and online, not all of it is valid, useful, or accurate.
How do you evaluate information sources identify bias? ›
- Heavily opinionated or one-sided.
- Relies on unsupported or unsubstantiated claims.
- Presents highly selected facts that lean to a certain outcome.
- Pretends to present facts, but offers only opinion.
- Uses extreme or inappropriate language.
It is important to evaluate Internet resources critically, as not everything you read online is reliable and true. Anyone can create a website, which means many websites lack the quality controls (e.g. editing and fact checking) that are used in publishing other types of resources (e.g. scholarly journals).
Why is it important to evaluate your sources of information quizlet? ›You need to be certain that all the information sources you use are accurate, reliable, relevant and objective and can be used as evidence to support your statements and arguments. Learning how to critically evaluate information resources is an essential skill for students undertaking any research activity.
What is an evaluation of a claim? ›An evaluative claim makes a statement about what is good or bad, right or wrong. For example: People should read books instead of watching so much TV. To test an evaluative claim, we appeal to standards of value.
How do you evaluate the evidence? ›- Who/what is the source of the evidence? ...
- Is the evidence found in a primary or secondary source? ...
- How does the evidence from one source compare and contrast with the evidence from another source? ...
- How current is the evidence?
...
Here is another example:
- P → Q.
- ¬ Q.
- ¬ P.
Evaluation provides a systematic method to study a program, practice, intervention, or initiative to understand how well it achieves its goals. Evaluations help determine what works well and what could be improved in a program or initiative.
How do you evaluate something? ›Critically evaluate or evaluate Provide an opinion about whether a statement in a piece of research is true and whether you agree with it. Include evidence that agrees and disagrees with the statement. Conclude by listing the most important factors and justify why you agree/disagree.
How do you know if truth value is true? ›In general, to determine validity, go through every row of the truth-table to find a row where ALL the premises are true AND the conclusion is false. Can you find such a row? If not, the argument is valid. If there is one or more rows, then the argument is not valid.
How do you find the truth? ›Four factors determine the truthfulness of a theory or explanation: congruence, consistency, coherence, and usefulness.
What does it mean to evaluate an argument? ›
One evaluates arguments by assessing their quality, i.e., how good they are as arguments. They might be eloquent as speeches or spine tingling as theater, but that won't make them good arguments. An argument's purpose is to compel a listener to believe the conclusion on the basis of the reasons given in support.
In what way does evaluating or making a good argument benefit you I? ›Knowing how to evaluate arguments will help you assess the validity of your own thinking, as well as the reasoning of others; appreciate multiple viewpoints on an issue or problem; and formulate sound, well-informed opinions.
What are two ways to evaluate evidence? ›Sample Answer
In nursing research, the two main approaches used to evaluate evidence include quantitative and qualitative techniques. Quantitative technique mainly involves assessment of the data and comparison of various measures applied in the study under review.